PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS
November 5, 1998 | J. Quisumbing
Topic: Conjugal Partnership of Gains
Doctrine: All property of the marriage is
presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership. However, the party who
invokes this presumption must first prove
that the property in controversy was
acquired during the marriage.
FACTS
● Petitioner, Teresita Francisco, is the
legal wife of respondent, Eusebio
Francisco by his second marriage
Conchita Evangelista, Araceli F. Marilla
and Antonio Francisco, also
respondents, are children of Eusebio by
his first marriage.
● Petitioner and respondent acquired a
sari-sari store and a house and lot.
● Eusebio got cancer and was unable to
administer the property. Petitioner
claims that the children got Eusebio to
authorize Conchita to administer the
property via general power of attorney.
● Petitioner files to cancel general power
of attorney, for compensation of
damages and to be declared the
administratrix of the property.
Relevant Provisions:
● NCC, Art. 160
ISSUES
● Insert the RELEVANT issues only -
YES / NO
● Relevant issues = those related to the
topic - YES / NO
HELD:
● NO, it was not a part of their conjugal
property.
● Article 160 of the New Civil Code
provides that “all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved
1
that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife”. However, the
party who invokes this presumption
must first prove that the property in
controversy was acquired during the
marriage. Needless to say, the
presumption refers only to the property
acquired during the marriage and does
not operate when there is no showing as
to when property alleged to be conjugal
was acquired.
● In this case, petitioner failed to adduce
ample evidence to show that the
properties which she claimed to be
conjugal were acquired during her
marriage with Eusebio.
RULING:
Properties are not part of the conjugal property.
Detailed explanation:
● With respect to the land at Col. Cruz St.,
Balite, Rodriguez, Rizal, petitioner failed
to refute the testimony of Eusebio that
he inherited the same from his parents.
Interestingly, petitioner even admitted
that Eusebio brought into their marriage
the said land, albeit in the concept of a
possessor only as it was not yet
registered in his name.
● Whether Eusebio succeeded to the
property prior or subsequent to his
second marriage is inconsequential. The
property should be regarded as his own
exclusively, as a matter of law, pursuant
to Article 148 of the New Civil Code.
● Essentially, property already owned by a
spouse prior to the marriage, and
brought to the marriage, is considered
his or her separate property.
Acquisitions by lucrative title refers to
properties acquired gratuitously and
Batica & Mendoza| A2022
November 5, 2018
CRIMINAL LAW 1
2
include those acquired by either spouse
during the marriage by inheritance, devise,
legacy, or donation (hence, it is still a
separate property even if obtained during
marriage).

● As regards the house, apartment and sari-

sari store, private respondents aver that
these properties were either constructed or
established by their father during his first
marriage. On the other hand, petitioner
insists that the said assets belong to
conjugal partnership. In support of her
claim, petitioner relied on the building
permits for the house and the apartment,
with her as the applicant although in the
name of Eusebio. She also invoked the
business license for the sari-sari store
issued in her name alone. However, the
aforementioned documents in no way prove
that the improvements were acquired during
the second marriage. And the fact that one
is the applicant or licensee is not
determinative of the issue as to whether or
not the property is conjugal.

● Regarding the property at San Isidro,

Rodriguez, Rizal, private respondents
assert that their father purchased it during
the lifetime of their mother. In contrast,
petitioner claims ownership over said
property inasmuch as the title thereto is
registered in the name of “Eusebio
Francisco, married to Teresita Francisco.”
The fact that the land was registered in the
name of “Eusebio Francisco, married to
Teresita Francisco”, is no proof that the
property was acquired during the spouses
coverture. The phrase “married to”
preceding “Teresita Francisco” is merely
descriptive of the civil status of Eusebio
Francisco.